[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1996] NISSCSC A3/96(II) (21 June 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1996/A3_96(II).html Cite as: [1996] NISSCSC A3/96(II)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1996] NISSCSC A3/96(II) (21 June 1996)

 


A3/96(II)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INDUSTRIAL DISABLEMENT BENEFIT Application by the claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal dated 22 September 1995 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal sitting at Belfast, whereby it was held that the extent of the claimant's disablement resulting from the loss of faculty arising out of the relevant industrial accident be assessed at 8% from and including 18 May 1995 to 17 January 1996, and that this was a final assessment. The decision represented a minor theoretical success in that the claimant's appeal had been against an assessment of 5%.
2. In their "reasons for decision" the Tribunal commented that the claimant had made no complaint before them of any sleep disturbance resulting from her injury and that this had been reflected in the reduction from the earlier assessment of 15% to 8%. The grounds upon which the claimant now seeks leave to appeal to the Commissioner are that she was not given the opportunity to make comment upon her sleep disturbance, that she was somewhat overawed by the proceedings, and expected the subject to be brought up by the Adjudicators. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the GB Commissioner in R(I) 29/61, in which it was held that a claimant had effectively been denied the opportunity of putting forward his case. As I understand it the submission is that the claimant in the present instance had similarly been denied such an opportunity, and that to this extent the Tribunal had erred in point of law.
3. Having studied GB Decision R(I) 29/61, I am satisfied that the facts upon which it was based were in no way comparable with those of the present case. In the 1961 case it was accepted that the claimant had not been expressly invited to say anything that he might wish to say, whereas in the present case it is clear that the claimant and her representative or witness both addressed the Tribunal and the claimant is recorded as having "nothing further to add". Altogether the conclusion which I have reached is that there is nothing to suggest that the claimant was in any way denied the right to present her case, and that the grounds upon which she relies in support of her application for leave to appeal are without substance.
4. I have also considered whether there is any other ground for holding that the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there is not. Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

21 June 1996